I agree. How can conservatives not see that you can’t create a system that divorces compensation from corporate profitability -a system that allows a failing CEO to walk away with 80 million dollars? People on this forum are quick to say that the UAW caused GM’s problems by taking ‘excessive’ compensation and benefits(this is not really true, but that is an argument for a different thread) when the company was doing poorly...yet bankers are doing the same thing and expecting taxpayers to subsidize them. Why any conservative would defend the bankers is beyond me.
The bonuses are to individuals, indivuals not yet identified. So it could very well be bonuses to the currency trader who made the company millions beyound expected, or the bond trader, or the mergers and acquisition people, all performing well. But because the people who invested in bad mortgages did poorly, these other individuals should not be compensated although performing to their employment agreement? Should a star ballplayer who bats 350 while on a losing team be required to return his salary because the remainder of the team failed to live up?